As much as I want to get in on that, the question on hand is whether or not the mast on top of the Freedom Tower is to be considered a spire or simply an antenna......

Specifically about what the CTBUH will do, it will be interesting. They're in a very touchy area here that is laying bare how out dated their current rules are.

On the one hand, if they decide it's an antenna because its covering was not put on, there's going to be a lot of media attention and quite a bit of head scratching from a lot of people. I'm sure there'll be a lot of folks that'll be interviewed in the media saying they're wrong. It'll hurt their credibility.

On the other hand, it's so obviously not designed to be seen I can see how lots of people can also wonder how it would be considered an architectural feature if the CTBUH rules that it is. It just doesn't look like something someone would design to be seen, i.e. a piece of architecture. I think if they rule in favor that this could also hurt their credibility.

Personally, I think if you read the rules carefully it should be considered an architectural feature as it does not meet all the criteria for being a non-architectural feature and clearly has an architectural meaning behind it.

I also think, that this is a perfect opportunity for them to say that modern construction and design technology has advanced enough that they are "refining" their rules and correct standards that allow the toothpick on the NY Times to count and something like the Willis Tower's antennas to not count. This is the type of thing that'll enhance their credibility IMO.

To me, the tip of the building is 1787 and the top is 1368. It was quite obvious tonight that the FAA light is above the beacon at 1776 feet.

I think it looks weird that only the antenna is lit and it's kinda just floating there in the dark, seemingly detached from the rest of the building. I hope they'll light the communication ring or parapet, like what they do for the Goldman-Sachs building and 4WTC.

I think it looks weird that only the antenna is lit and it's kinda just floating there in the dark, seemingly detached from the rest of the building. I hope they'll light the communication ring or parapet, like what they do for the Goldman-Sachs building and 4WTC.

I do believe they plan to. I don't understand why they couldn't just keep testing it like they have been doing, no need to pull extra attention to it. I was looking for the rotating beacon, but was disappointed I didn't get to see that. And to have it lit up without the ring being lit was just silly.

I wonder why they wanted all eyes on the Freedom Tower mast for last nights showing.

Hmmm, it's maybe just a coincidence that it just happened to be on the same day the case was being made in Chicago to include it in the buildings height! That's right folks, nothing to see here, just a coincidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMGarcia

Specifically about what the CTBUH will do, it will be interesting. They're in a very touchy area here that is laying bare how out dated their current rules are.

On the one hand, if they decide it's an antenna because its covering was not put on, there's going to be a lot of media attention and quite a bit of head scratching from a lot of people. I'm sure there'll be a lot of folks that'll be interviewed in the media saying they're wrong. It'll hurt their credibility.

Their credibility is already hurt in that they're entertaining this farce to begin with. And now they may want to alter rules yet again, where a simple "no" would have done the trick. But as I've said, if they want to include it, you may as well include all the others. Imagine the fun with the rankings. The Freedom Tower brings everyone up. On the other hand, if they decide that neither spires nor antennas will count in official height, then it's all the same.

Meanwhile, the media is all over themselves with this one, and nobody has a clue...

Chicago contending if One World Trade Center rises above Second City's Willis Tower on a technicality
With the imminent completion of 1 World Trade Center, the logical question arises: is it bigger than the Willis Tower in Chicago.

By Larry Mcshane
November 8, 2013

Quote:

The Second City — apparently tired of looking up at New York — could be conspiring to steal the title of the nation's tallest building. A Chicago-based committee of 30 architects will decide whether the 1,776-foot 1 World Trade Center rises above all skyscrapers from coast to coast, or finishes second to the Willis Tower on a technicality.

Architects for 1 World Trade Center say the spire is not merely a broadcast antenna, but a part of the building’s overall aesthetic appeal.

Disappointment awaits one of the two cities, as either the new World Trade Center or the Windy City skyscraper will wind up as second-tallest. A decision is due next week.

The issue has been hanging over the architecture world since the spring, when construction crews hoisted a 400-foot metal mast into place at the top of One World Trade Center. As far as New Yorkers are concerned, it's now the tallest skyscraper in the hemisphere.

Veronica Smalls of Harlem agrees. "It has to be the tallest," she says.

"Not one of the tallest," interrupts her friend Tyreek Jones of Brooklyn, " 'cause New York City needs to be known as No. 1."

"We're standing on a sheet of glass, looking 1,353 feet straight down to the street," says Bob Wislow, standing on a ledge extending out from the sky deck on the 104th floor of the Willis Tower.

Wislow is a lifelong Chicagoan who watched this building go up 40 years ago. Now he's chairman and CEO of the company that manages it. Wislow says he has great respect for New York and for the developers and builders of One World Trade Center, which he calls a great symbol of American resilience. But, "I do think technically, if you strictly interpret the rules, that this would continue to be the tallest building," he says.

Even visitors from overseas agree. Lee Colgan and her family are visiting the sky deck from England.

But Colgan doesn't get to decide; the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat does. It's based in Chicago — suspiciously — but it's made up of people from all over the world. Its 30-member "height" committee will be debating these buildings on Friday.

"The last time we did this, in 2007 ... we spent all day talking," says Wood.

There are two other issues that people aren't picking up on. One, this building won't be 1,776 ft either way. And two, forget about Chicago, this building is potentially on course to be no higher than number 3 in New York.

__________________NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.

The capstone of 1-WTC's lighting will be a rotating beacon at the top of the spire. The beacon will project light in two opposing directions in a horizontal plane, like a lighthouse. It will rotate once per minute. John Gebbie sent this description of the beacon, developed by equipment suppliers J.R. Clancy and Strong Lighting: "...they developed the energy-efficient LED beacon which uses 50W LED modules, shot into a set of mirrors that concentrate the 288,000 lumens into a 1-degree beam spread, visible from miles away."

Once it lights up, the 1-WTC spire will be illuminated from dusk until 12:00 a.m. ET time.

__________________NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.

I think that rendering might be an exaggeration. I could make out the rotating beacon last night, and also on the very first night they tested the beacon a few months back .... it's somewhat like the rotating beacon atop the Eiffel Tower.... only much much less bright.

Although I could be wrong... perhaps someone knows the precise lumen count for each beacon. I also seem to remember the rotating beacon on the Eiffel Tower is double-ended and I don't remember what I saw last night was double-ended here at 1 WTC.